RE: [council] JAS

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with both ideas.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] JAS
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, January 21, 2011 6:06 am
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Councillors,
> 
> Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a 
> suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to 
> make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal 
> capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways 
> forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
> 
> One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of 
> mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could 
> take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They 
> could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
> 
> As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us 
> as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our 
> recommendation to the Board.
> 
> Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the 
> GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion 
> forums".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane